|
Guy Goodbody posted:First white lady president? That isn't social justice. Though it is IDPOL. Civilized Fishbot posted:Hillary was generally more anti-gun, which I think she tried to position as a social-justicey thing (Bernie in safe cozy Vermont doesn't care about the violence in black and Hispanic ghettos) Eh. Anti-gun is more of an authoritarian position. I'll give half credit for it though, since if you consider gun-control a social justice plank it definitely counts. Cinnamon Bear posted:Every minority group should have an opportunity to oppress the poor This is definitely one of the most important planks for Hillary people. But I'm sorry I disagree with it. Call me a monster, but I just don't feel oppressing poor people is a good thing, even if a PoC is doing it.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:You might even say that all lives matter. Hillary did!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
i resist my urges to be snappy with my responses to people because it is the demense of trump and white nationalism to treat your opponents without the intellectual respect they deserve. i feel i will suffer for this eventually
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Heaven Spacey posted:i resist my urges to be snappy with my responses to people because it is the demense of trump and white nationalism to treat your opponents without the intellectual respect they deserve. When in Rome bitch!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Heaven Spacey posted:BLM is a necessary movement because institutional racism is epidemic in the United States, and not just in criminal justice. There are still plenty of poor-rear end whites, and to imply that they are poor because of their own mistakes or lack of work ethic or weak morals is to promote the same just-world bullshit that makes a movement like BLM important. The whole idea that economic justice and social justice aren't antithetical and both should be focused on is entirely true, the main problem that I see is that usually when people say that (on these forums, at least) the next sentence is something like "And that's why we should focus on economic justice so it solves social justice." If you actually do want to focus on both, you specifically need to focus on both, rhetorically and in policy. And that means not just saying "let's solve problems for everyone" and hoping that, despite a country's history of evidence to the contrary, this isn't taken to mean "let's solve problems for white people". (And just for the record, none of this should be taken as a statement on what Sanders or Clinton did or didn't do, I'm speaking generally of the message of the party rather than specific candidates.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
You cannot marshal the 2016 American left without appealing to social justice. We absolutely shouldn't abandon those issues, both for the sake of our ideals and for pragmatic reasons. We just need to make sure that economic justice gets a fair shake too (see: not using social justice as a springboard to get a young diverse cast of Goldman Sachs allies into power where they will continue advancing the interests of the super-rich). The platform of the American left needs to be "justice," without any qualifiers whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that Bernie made those remarks against idpol, because that'll alienate a lot of people, but it kind of makes sense that he made them from his perspective. From a more old-school socialist perspective, the workers of the world need to unite because they have nothing to lose but their chains and a world to gain, and he sees idpol as inherently divisive and thus counter-productive to that goal. But our country has deep racial divisions and we need to address them. e: new topic, say that the Internet's current long-shot obsession actually comes to pass and it's proven that the election was hacked by Russia and the real results favor Hillary. What does that mean for the Democratic Party going forward? Do we shake off the nightmare of the past few weeks and pretend they never happened, or do we retain the lessons we learned from our soul-searching and strive to Get Better even though we're not doomed to suffer under a dictatorial buffoon for four years? loquacius has issued a correction as of 17:26 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:or maybe we actually experienced Sanders supporters and their 'no war but class war' mindset actively trying to minimize minority issues in Democratic circles during the primary and thought it was kinda lovely. Reminder that Sanders supporters were actually less racist than Clinton supporters on average: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
I watched like one youtube video of the protestors in North Dakota getting sprayed by water cannons and now I keep getting pro pipeline/anti-protestor political ads on youtube. The fact that those ads even exist is kind of gross.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I watched like one youtube video of the protestors in North Dakota getting sprayed by water cannons and now I keep getting pro pipeline/anti-protestor political ads on youtube. Make sure you click on them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
For anybody in the KC, MO area, this was recently posted on the Jackson County Democratic Committee website: Nov 21 2016 The Jackson County Democratic Committee will be hosting two "focus group" sessions to review the results of the election and discuss our paths going forward as Democrats in Missouri. All are welcome to have their voice and opinion heard. December 8, 5:30pm - 7:30pm Courthouse Exchange, 113 W Lexington Ave, Independence MO 64050 December 13, 5:30pm - 7:30pm Travois, 310 W 19th Terrace, Kansas City 64108
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Reminder that Sanders supporters were actually less racist than Clinton supporters on average: Doesn't this imply that white Clinton supporters are more racist than Kasich or even Cruz supporters? Because presumably the black supporters virtually all give the non-racist answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Heaven Spacey posted:I have yet to meet this mythical Bernie supporter that is somehow actually worse than the average American liberal when it comes to matters of minority rights. Why do democrats like this not understand that any efforts to help the impoverished, the unjustly imprisoned, the single mother, are going to overwhelmingly help racial and ethnic minorities? There's no need to say "I want to help all struggling black and latina single mothers", blacks and latinas make up a disproportionate amount of that population and everyone that's a struggling single mother deserves help. It's not queer-bashing to say that everyone who lives in poverty deserves help, even though transpeople are much more likely than average to live in poverty. I just don't understand why Hillary supporters keep inventing this straw-leftist, especially now that the race is over and abuela loving blew it on an unthinkable scale. To allude to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment on white moderates, as a loving Hillary supporter criticizing Bernie supporters, is the most goddamn self-unaware thing I have ever read. Hillary may have founded her campaign on criminal justice reform but her history with that movement is just as paternalistic as the white moderates who vexed Dr. King. Now more than ever we have to work together to overcome the situation we're in, and pithy bullshit like this is what got us here in the first place. Divide and conquer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Doesn't this imply that white Clinton supporters are more racist than Kasich or even Cruz supporters? Because presumably the black supporters virtually all give the non-racist answers. Well only if you assume black people can't be racist, which is a lovely assumption. That said I don't really care about using degrees of racism as a purity test.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well only if you assume black people can't be racist, which is a lovely assumption. That said I don't really care about using degrees of racism as a purity test. I assume black people are less racist than white people toward other black people, which is a fair assumption imo. that's kind of why they didn't vote for trump Although I agree that analyzing the racism of a candidate's supporters isn't really a fair way to evaluate that candidate, I just think it's interesting how this chart really speaks against a widly held consensus that white democrats are less racist than republicans Civilized Fishbot has issued a correction as of 17:54 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I don't think anyone's saying we should ignore white poverty (well, someone probably is, it's the internet after all), but I'm saying it is important to specifically talk about black and Latina (and other demographics) poverty as part of that message. It's a "yes, and" type situation. Just like BLM isn't ignoring that white people can be brutalized and murdered by police too. I agree with this, but also feel there are lots of people, even on these forums, who seem to think we should ignore white poverty... or rather, that we should ignore the needs of white people (because they already have privilege and many of them vote against us) and of poor people (because their poverty clearly indicates they are dumb and uneducated and many of them vote against us) and of rural people (it's their fault they haven't moved to the city yet and many of them vote against us), and white poor rural people end up getting triple ignored, even the ones who are or want to be all for the better society the left is trying to sell. It's not as if "gently caress the south" and similar sentiments of abandoning anyone who doesn't have the privilege of living an a wealthy progressive enclave to their fate are uncommon, nor are those who advocate social justice in a very FYGM manner. Like, you probably gloss over when they say a lot of the poo poo they say the same way a lot of white people gloss over genuinely lovely racist stuff simply because there's no immediate personal connection and it easily passes out of their mind, but it's everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Maybe this is simplifing a bit much but to me the chart just implies that Clinton's supporters are generally older than ones for Sanders
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:Maybe this is simplifing a bit much but to me the chart just implies that Clinton's supporters are generally older than ones for Sanders That's one possible reason for Civilized Fishbot posted:white Clinton supporters are more racist than Kasich or even Cruz supporters Would love to see the demographic breakdowns for that. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 18:01 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I assume black people are less racist than white people toward other black people, which is a fair assumption imo. that's kind of why they didn't vote for trump Speaking of what Hillary Supports believe in: School Integration, a hot topic in the 1960's South, finally coming to New York? http://gothamist.com/2016/11/23/uws_school_zoning_integration.php Is this social justice? Seems like those dastardly Hill Shills don't actually care about it, if it is!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Chemzes/status/801419514915291136
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I don't think anyone's saying we should ignore white poverty (well, someone probably is, it's the internet after all), but I'm saying it is important to specifically talk about black and Latina (and other demographics) poverty as part of that message. It's a "yes, and" type situation. Just like BLM isn't ignoring that white people can be brutalized and murdered by police too. I feel that you and I fundamentally agree on this  I'm always really careful how I word my views on economic justice precisely because whites traditionally are oppressors and they still make up the majority of the capitalist class today. Ever since I actually started thinking about politics, demography, and sociology, though, it has always been my view that a poor white has more in common with a poor black than with a rich white.I also find that I usually have much more difficult, bitter arguments with people I basically agree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Doesn't this imply that white Clinton supporters are more racist than Kasich or even Cruz supporters? Because presumably the black supporters virtually all give the non-racist answers. It's possible that a poll designed to test how racist toward black people you are only questioned white people, or only non-black people or something. If so they should have said that in the description though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Speaking of what Hillary Supports believe in: Forced school integration has historically been shown to be one of the single most valuable tools, if not THE most valuable, for fighting systemic racism, hasn't it? There's absolutely no one that can justify opposing it while still claiming they are in favour of social justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Speaking of what Hillary Supports believe in: GlyphGryph posted:Forced school integration has historically been shown to be one of the single most valuable tools, if not THE most valuable, for fighting systemic racism, hasn't it? Two of the UWS residents who opposed this school integration were none other than Samantha Bee and Jason Jones. http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2016/06/17/the_upper_west_side_is_new_york_s_latest_school_integration_battleground.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Forced school integration has historically been shown to be one of the single most valuable tools, if not THE most valuable, for fighting systemic racism, hasn't it? I can think of a couple Clinton supporters who've tried... e; beaten lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Heaven Spacey posted:I feel that you and I fundamentally agree on this Yeah I think it's more accurate to say "the oppressors have traditionally been white" than to say "whites traditionally are the oppressors". Whites in general have a lot of privileges that were granted to them on the basis of their skin color, but most of them are incidental, or specifically designed to control them into acting against their own best interest. I think "oppressor" is a term that should really be reserved for those with a modicum of actual political power, and that has not generally applied to the majority of white people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Doesn't this imply that white Clinton supporters are more racist than Kasich or even Cruz supporters? Because presumably the black supporters virtually all give the non-racist answers. I dunno. Do black respondents living in poor areas rank blacks as more violent? That would be a reasonable position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Two of the UWS residents who opposed this school integration were none other than Samantha Bee and Jason Jones. Strange, I wonder why Clinton had such racists supporting her campaign, especially since she was all about social justice? Very odd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Hillary was generally more anti-gun, which I think she tried to position as a social-justicey thing (Bernie in safe cozy Vermont doesn't care about the violence in black and Hispanic ghettos) That's a funny way to say "was swept into office on a wave of NRA dollars"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I agree with this, but also feel there are lots of people, even on these forums, who seem to think we should ignore white poverty... or rather, that we should ignore the needs of white people (because they already have privilege and many of them vote against us) and of poor people (because their poverty clearly indicates they are dumb and uneducated and many of them vote against us) and of rural people (it's their fault they haven't moved to the city yet and many of them vote against us), and white poor rural people end up getting triple ignored, even the ones who are or want to be all for the better society the left is trying to sell. It's not as if "gently caress the south" and similar sentiments of abandoning anyone who doesn't have the privilege of living an a wealthy progressive enclave to their fate are uncommon, nor are those who advocate social justice in a very FYGM manner. Heaven Spacey posted:I feel that you and I fundamentally agree on this
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
loquacius posted:It's unfortunate that Bernie made those remarks against idpol, because that'll alienate a lot of people, but it kind of makes sense that he made them from his perspective. From a more old-school socialist perspective, the workers of the world need to unite because they have nothing to lose but their chains and a world to gain, and he sees idpol as inherently divisive and thus counter-productive to that goal. But our country has deep racial divisions and we need to address them. Idpol is inherently devisive because it's a very liberal framing of intersectional issues. If your identity grouping is the basis around which you form a politics, then it validates anyone's "identity." What happens if somebody identifies as a Fascist? According to liberal ethics, we're supposed to respect that position and hear it out. It deserves a place at the table of respectable political discourse. Even the constitution is framed in such a way that no ideology is off the table. The KKK could only be repressed because they engaged in terrorist activity, but now that they're reformed they can run their own candidates for political office unimpeded. More specifically, it encourages minority groupings to discriminate against others because their immediate goal is to elevate themselves. Plenty of black folks hate Hispanics, because Latin American immigrants compete with them for jobs, or had their industrial jobs overshored to assembly plants in Mexico. Cis gays often discriminate brutally against trans people, for particular prejudiced reasons, but also because they think trans folk are an albatross around the neck of gay liberation. "LGBTQ" became heavily emphasized on the LG. The pursuit of social and economic justice for everyone is the sole basis upon which a broad mass movement can be built in a society as diverse as America's. Idpol tends too heavily to a crab bucket mentality, and should be rejected for the individualistic nonsense it is. It's all or nothing, socialism or barbarism. That's why Bernie is pursuing the correct path forward, and why Clintonites are reactively trying to smear him as a racist. Catering solely to their own special interest groups, is why they're retaining what little power they have left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Two of the UWS residents who opposed this school integration were none other than Samantha Bee and Jason Jones. white new yorkers (the city) are terrified by the very idea of integration and the vast majority of them voted for clinton, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I agree with this, but also feel there are lots of people, even on these forums, who seem to think we should ignore white poverty... or rather, that we should ignore the needs of white people (because they already have privilege and many of them vote against us) and of poor people (because their poverty clearly indicates they are dumb and uneducated and many of them vote against us) and of rural people (it's their fault they haven't moved to the city yet and many of them vote against us), and white poor rural people end up getting triple ignored, even the ones who are or want to be all for the better society the left is trying to sell. It's not as if "gently caress the south" and similar sentiments of abandoning anyone who doesn't have the privilege of living an a wealthy progressive enclave to their fate are uncommon, nor are those who advocate social justice in a very FYGM manner. I think you're very right here and while I'd maybe argue on the scale of things, I agree that people making stupid 'lol we need another Sherman am I right guys' type comments should be called out on what a stupid loving statement that is on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:That's a funny way to say "was swept into office on a wave of NRA dollars" Hey if the NRA wants to support Socialism, what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:That's a funny way to say "was swept into office on a wave of NRA dollars" what's the basis for this statement, I'm p sure they gave him a D- rating
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
iirc it basically boiled down to "Sanders didn't have a stupid loving view of gun control, his opponent did, so the NRA made a donation knowing full well they'd be ranking him poorly anyway."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
loquacius posted:what's the basis for this statement, I'm p sure they gave him a D- rating Some scuttle butt from the primary. He was running for reelection in like 1990 or something, and was supported by the NRA. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8059_story.html If you are a single issue anti-gun voter, you are an idiot. If you aren't then it shouldn't matter at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Speaking as someone from a southern state, the sooner Democrats drop the gun control issue the better. I know way too many people who refused to vote for Clinton on the basis that "she wants to take our guns". Absolutely hated Trump and didn't vote for him, but also refused to vote for Democrats as well. Gun control is a losing issue for losers. There's a reason why the Blue Dog Democrats were able to hold on for as long as they did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:white new yorkers (the city) are terrified by the very idea of integration and the vast majority of them voted for clinton, lol lol quote:. "To portray any opposition as classist or racist is as bad as it can get," Jones told WNYC. And elsewhere: "We are not divided,” he said at a public hearing about the proposal, “we are absolutely united in wanting what's best for our children," then encouraged fellow parents not to talk to the press about the controversy. We want the best for our kids which is no poor black thugs in our perfect upper west side neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah I think it's more accurate to say "the oppressors have traditionally been white" than to say "whites traditionally are the oppressors". Whites in general have a lot of privileges that were granted to them on the basis of their skin color, but most of them are incidental, or specifically designed to control them into acting against their own best interest. I think "oppressor" is a term that should really be reserved for those with a modicum of actual political power, and that has not generally applied to the majority of white people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:38
|
|
